These judgements are uploaded by our esteemed readers. If you have a judgement on an important topic that you would like to share with others, please use this form to upload it
JACOB PUNNEN & ANR. Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (Supreme Court)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6778 OF 2013: JACOB PUNNEN & ANR. Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6778 OF 2013 THE SUPREME COURT rejected the insurer’s argument that the consumer was under an obligation to inquire about the terms of the policy, and any changes that might have been introduced, in the standard terms. The… Read More ...
Police Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Gondia v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–2, Gondia (ITAT Nagpur)
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench: The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the activity of providing credit facility to its members. Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of IT Act. Assessee filed its return of Income u/s. 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs. NIL after claiming deduction of Rs. 72,09,175/- u/s. 80P of the Act.… Read More ...
Shashank Sadashiv Karkare vs ITO, Ward-1, Ratnagiri (ITAT Pune)
ITAT Pune: Filing of Form No.67 within the due date for filing of the return of income is not mandatory, but it is mere a directory under the provisions of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On date of processing the return of income, a Form No.67 was uploaded, which the CPC, Bangalore had failed to take into… Read More ...
TVF Fund Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 90 : Double taxation relief-Capital gains-Exempt income-Set-off of losses-Carry-forward allowed-No set-off of capital losses against exempt gains permitted- Carry-forward of losses for future years is allowed, subject to that the set-off must be applied only to income which is taxable in India-DTAA-India-Mauritius. [S. 70, 74(1), 90(2), Art. 4, 13(3B) ,13(4)] The assessee, TVF Fund… Read More ...
Hiralal H. Malu, Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Shakuntala Hiralal Malu v. DDIT (Inv) (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 132B : Application of seized or requisitioned assets-Search and Seizure-Jewellery-Release of seized assets-Strictures-Accountability- Jewellery seized in the year 2005-Not released to the assessee even after 25 years - Loss of seized jewellery from the Bank locker-Legal heir entitled to return of jewellery-Income tax department and Bank held liable to compensate-Interim relief granted-The Court emphasized… Read More ...
Ramlal G. Suthar v. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Notice issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year-Principal Chief Commissioner-Approval obtained from Principal Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner-Reassessment notice and consequential order is quashed and set aside. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b), 144B, 147, 148, 151(ii)] The Assessing Officer framed the assessment under Section 147… Read More ...
City Corporation Limited v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Non existing company-Merger of companies-Notice served on non-existing company or entity despite the respondents’ knowledge of its non-existence-Notice is quashed and set aside. [S. 2(31), 292B, 148A, 151, 292B, Art. 226] The petitioner company, City Corporation Limited (CCL), merged with its subsidiary company, Amanora Future Towers Pvt. Ltd. (AFTPL) in 2018, as… Read More ...
KEC International Ltd. v. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Book profit-Decapitalization of interest-Failure of Assessing Officer to examine computation of book profits-Order of Tribunal affirming the revision order of Commissioner is affirmed. [S. 32AB, 115J, 260A] The Assessing Officer accepted the assessee’s computation of book profits under Section 115J off the Act. The CIT invoked Section… Read More ...
Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 271(1) : Penalty-Concealment-Revaluing the asset, introducing it into the partnership, and withdrawing substantial funds, amounted to a device to evade tax rather than a genuine business transaction- The Explanation offered by the Appellant was found to be patently false -Levy of concealment penalty is affirmed. [S. 260A] The appellant firm revalued the stock in… Read More ...
Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
Bombay High Court: S. 147 : Reassessment-Objection disposed along with the assessment order-Order passed without disposing the objection by passing a separate order- Failure to dispose of objections separate order-Reopening notice and reassessment order is quashed and set aside. [S. 80 IA, 142 (1), 143(3), 148, Art. 226] The assessment of the petitioner was completed under Section 143(3)… Read More ...